UKIP is not a libertarian party - Spectator Blogs

I’m sure, as James says, that the idea of some kind of Tory-UKIP non-aggression pact will not go away. But that’s because many Tory backbenchers are remarkably stupid. Proponents of a Tory-UKIP alliance ignore the stubborn fact that many voters – voters the Tories need if they are to win a majority – aren’t too keen on UKIP. There is no point adding one vote from the right if it costs you two from the middle, mainstream ground of British politics. Besides, the Tories are not every UKIP voter’s second-choice and, anyway, the real battle is for the Liberal Democrat vote.

Be that as it may, it is UKIP’s insistence that it is a libertarian party that annoys me. Granted, there are many brands of libertarian and UKIP can describe itself as it wants. However that also means there’s no need for libertarian-minded voters to accept UKIP’s own definition of the tendency.

That’s not to say that UKIP’s views are uniformly hostile to liberty. The party – or, at any rate, Nigel Farage – has a saner attitude to our drug laws than some might expect or than anything offered by the present government. I also approve of its opposition to anti-tobacco legislation and, though it is hardly a matter of the most pressing concern, its support for local people to decide whether fox-hunting should be permitted in their county.

Nevertheless…

I find it hard to read the What We Stand For page on UKIP’s website and conclude that UKIP is a liberal party. And since, in my experience, libertarians tend to be liberals I find myself wondering if UKIP’s self-defined libertarianism is actually all that libertarian.

And that’s before you even ponder nonsense such as the assertions that 75 per cent of all British law is ‘dictated’ by ‘Commissioners in Brussels’, that the ‘EU controls Immigration, Business and Employment, Financial Services, Fishing, Farming, Law and Order, Energy and Trade’ and that other European countries ‘depend on us for their markets’.

Well, it’s a point of view.

UKIP’s euro-mania may be its unique selling point, but it’s actually perhaps the least troubling element of the party’s platform. Much of the rest of it, at least as itemised on its website, appears to advocate massively reducing government revenues and simultaneously increasing expenditure on items UKIP deems vital. That’s politics, of course, but it’s politics as written on the back of a beer mat, not the kind of stuff that makes any real sense.

So, sure, merging national insurance and income tax is intuitively sensible and a single 31 per cent rate of tax at least has the advantage of being easy to understand. But actually implementing this is a different matter. Moreover and even though I rather approve of UKIP’s desire to increase the tax-free personal allowance it does not take a bear of any great brain to appreciate that the already-wealthy will be the biggest beneficiaries of UKIP’s tax policies.

Since the party also proposes to eliminate employer’s national insurance and VAT (replacing it with a local sales tax) one does wonder where the money will come from to pay for the services UKIP pledges to protect.

Because despite all the talk of cutting government down to size, UKIP’s ‘mission statement’ is awkwardly silent on what parts of the government – other than contributions to the EU! – might be axed. I mean, there’s a pledge to ‘bring Quangos under Parliament’s control and cut the cost substantially’ and that’s about it. Really, there’s not much more than that. Who knew John Bull rode a unicorn?

Take energy, for example. UKIP wish to eliminate subsidies for renewable energy and, er, replace them with subsidies for nuclear power. That’s a policy for sure but it’s not necessarily a cheaper one. And since UKIP also want – not altogether unreasonably – to ‘give the public power to require binding local and national referenda on major issue’ it’s not certain they would even be able to build their new nuclear power stations either. What if the people say No?

Global warming, of course, ‘is not proven’ (actually it is; the question is what is the most effective and efficient way of dealing with it) and we need to free ourselves from ‘dependence’ on ‘foreign oil and gas’. Why? Because it is oil and gas or because it is foreign? It’s not clear. (The mainstream libertarian view is that it doesn’t much matter where we source these commodities.)

Indeed, the only government department whose budget UKIP promises to slash is, naturally, International Development. I suspect much of that budget is spent with dubious efficiency and all the rest of it but the idea cutting foreign aid will pay for everything else is populist wankery of the most deceitful kind.

This should not surprise. UKIP is a right-wing populist – even Poujadist – party. And that’s fine! But labeling themselves such is at least more accurate than the pretense they are really libertarians.

It’s a queer sort of libertarian that wants to double the number of Britons incarcerated at Her Majesty’s pleasure. But that’s UKIP’s policy. A crowd-pleasing policy perhaps but not necessarily a libertarian one. And while it is true that many libertarians see a useful role for referendums and direct democracy, I think it is also true that many libertarians are quite rightly sensible to the fact that many of our fellow-citizens are not at all liberal and that, this being regrettably so, the tyranny of the majority is much to be feared.

Again, increasing the police budget and spending more on national defence (another thing for which UKIP stands) are perfectly respectable views. Even so, a libertarian-minded fiscal hawk might wonder where the money will come to pay for all this. He – it is usually a he – might also wonder if UKIP’s support for eliminating university tuition fees and boosting the ‘Citizen’s Pension’ to a ‘substantial’ level is really compatible with reducing public debt. He only asks, you know.

But he might also wonder if UKIP’s enthusiasm for increasing the state’s power is really all that compatible with libertarianism as the term is at least sometimes (and in my mind, properly) understood. UKIP wishes to ‘Free the police force from the straitjacket of political correctness’ and it wants to repeal the Human Rights Act because this is necessary to ‘end abuses by convicted criminals and illegal immigrants’. Perhaps. There is, mind you, at least a credible libertarian argument for supposing that placing limits on the police’s powers is one way to protect individuals from the state. Equally, it must be possible that the protections afforded by the Human Rights Act are not exclusively enjoyed by ‘criminals’ and ‘illegal immigrants’ and might also be something to be cherished by clean-living, stout-hearted Britons.

Then there’s the dog-whistling. ‘Permanent’ immigration should be frozen for five years (why only five?) and thereafter only open to those who are well-educated, wealthy and ‘fluent in English’. In other words: Australians and some South Africans are fine, Poles and Nigerians may be less welcome.

Again, I am sure this is a view that would poll rather well. I’m also sure it’s not the traditional libertarian view. UKIP profess a belief in free trade but they’re also happy to restrict freedom of movement. I think this economically suspect but, in some respects, that’s less important than the substance of the dog-whistle which is, in the end, unfortunately xenophobic.And since libertarianism is, at its best, an internationalist creed this seems antithetical to libertarianism in the terms I understand it.

UKIP make this pretty clear in the final section of What We Stand For. They say: ‘Our traditional values have been undermined’. But what are those traditional values? A whites-only immigration policy? Women in the kitchen? The working-classes knowing their place? Gays denied the right to marry one another? UKIP doesn’t say.

It gets worse. ‘Children are taught to be ashamed of our past.’ Really? It is not so long since I was at school myself but I do not recall – outside of divinity lessons – any great instruction on how to feel properly ashamed. Must I now presume that my friends and relatives who are teachers are actually indoctrinating their pupils in a massive programme of national self-abasement?

Then there’s this. ‘Multiculturalism has split our society’. Well, define your terms please. If by multiculturalism you mean those people who are stupidly tolerant of forced marriages, honour killing and the general thwarting of women’s rights to self-expression and fulfillment, then you have a point. But those people are in a minority. There are some obvious – and serious – problems with integration but there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism provided those myriad cultures operate within the norms of British standards of behaviour. Below that common denominator there is ample room for difference and individual preference.

But if you fail to define what you mean by multiculturalism you should not be surprised – or act offended – if some people wonder if your use of the loaded, imprecise word ‘multiculturalism’ is actually code for something else.

UKIP conclude that ‘Political correctness is stifling free speech’. Actually, it is Britain’s parliamentarians, cloth-brained prosecutors and fatheaded police officers who are doing that. Can’t blame Europe for this. And yet these are the people and authorities whom UKIP argue should be given more power, not less. It’s a rum old world right enough. But should we be surprised by any of this? Probably not. After all, senior UKIP figures want to pass laws telling British citizens what clothes they may – or rather, may not – wear. Live and let live? Up to a point, mate.

I don’t think UKIP do themselves any real favours with any of this. The UKIP supporters I know (small sample-size alert!) are not, really, on board with this kind of tripe. There’s a whole heap of stupidity out there – as Rotherham social services have recently demonstrated – without there being any need to add to it. Nevertheless, what’s deemed political correctness these days used to have a different name: good manners. It’s not ‘politically incorrect’ to tell a Paki joke, it’s just usually stupid, boorish and rude. And while we can all agree that ‘PC culture’ has occasionally plumbed extraordinary depths of witlessness it is – or, rather, should be – at its best a reminder to treat people as individuals not citizens defined by their ethnicity, religion, class, gender or sexual orientation. Bureaucracy struggles with this; libertarians need not.

Most of all, however, I think the libertarian tendency is a matter of temperament. At its best I believe that libertarianism is relaxed, open-minded, forward-facing and optimistic. It is a tendency that believes, occasionally naively, in humanity. There is a cussed don’t-tread-on-me streak to it too for sure, but fundamentally libertarians believe the best is yet to come. They embrace the future. (It’s not, I think, a coincidence that many libertarians are sci-fi geeks.)

This necessarily means there’s a tension between libertarians, Tories and Conservatives (the latter two being overlapping but still distinct groups). That can be a good thing, not least since – again at their best – each group should usefully challenge the others’ prejudices, assumptions and preferences.

UKIP, on the other hand, strikes me as being a party for reactionaries and monomaniacal euro-obsessives. Their vision of Britain is, I can’t help but feel, a Britain besieged and on the point of collapse. Despite Mr Farage’s cheeky-squirrel countenance and pawky, two-gins-before-lunch demeanor, they seem a party of terrible pessimists, convinced the world has gone to the dogs. They are an angry party for angry people, and while libertarians are often and rightly dismayed by politics (and would like to be left unbothered by politics) I like to think that an essential part of libertarianism is its faintly touching belief that many things are getting better.

Not least because they are. Britain, like other developed countries, is in many – and many significant – ways a better, freer, more tolerant, liberal, happy, relaxed place than it was back in the day. There are serious difficulties that must be overcome but the trend toward human freedom – in Britain and, in fact, across the world – has been moving in the right direction. This is a good time to be alive and, recent economic setbacks notwithstanding, most of our people have never had it so good. If that is true here it is even truer in other, less ostensibly fortunate, parts of the world.

Libertarianism is a broad church but, in the end, if I’m a libertarian then UKIP can’t be very libertarian. And, of course, vice versa.

PS: UKIP’s website also offers you the chance to enter a draw for a whole, shiny, real Gold Sovereign. Because, as you know, gold is ‘a safe haven in troubled times’. Perhaps it is. But appealing to goldbugs is a sure sign of crankery.

Alex Massie You say “Global Warming is proven”. HOW? Did you attend that BBC secret meeting? Most people believe in climate change (but not to the extent to which we are forced to accept). Apparently my Ford Focus chucks out 170g of carbon dioxide for every 1000 metres i drive. It’s when the lie is THAT obvious that people know they are not in a position to debate it. It has been accepted by people in public life because it is not worth their while debating any longer!

JMcKechnie

‘UKIP, on the other hand, strikes me as being a party for reactionaries and monomaniacal euro-obsessives.’ UKIP are possibly going to have to get used to more of this kind of thing I suppose. I am not a member of UKIP, nor any political-party for that matter, if pushed I’d probably call myself a tory(small ‘t’ is deliberate), but they must have made some mark on the political landscape if they attract this kind of attention.

What has become clear in recent times, however, is that UKIP are proving a threat to the implied Establishment view: whatever that view may be is not really easy to put a narrative on, indeed it probably has no singular narrative at all; but whatever UKIP is doing, and whatever the reason people support it, reflects a restlessness in Britain that just can’t be thrown over the shoulder as merely ‘reactionary’ or as a ‘monomaniacal euro-obsess(ion)’.

Colonel Mustard

Dear Mr Massie, would that you subjected the other three main political parties to this degree of scrutiny and critique. They actually hold power over us and goodness knows it is about time they were properly held to account for it. But of course being as directly critical towards them might lose you your insider reporting privileges whilst with UKIP you have nothing to lose. Understandable if not very brave.

As to your lyrical waxing about freedom I suggest that is both subjective and unproven. I am sure there are many, even in England, who could not agree with you. I’m not sure the young victims of forced marriage or of systematic abuse feel very free, happy or relaxed. I’m sure the couple who had their foster children seized because they belonged to a legitimate political party don’t.

Robin of Bagshot

Spot on Mr Massie

UKIP is a party made up of 19th hole bores and with a barrow boy for a leader. It has little or nothing constructive to offer and articulates a variety of rather unpleasant views. The sooner we hear as little as possible about it and its ill-considered policies the better for everyone.

Colonel Mustard

Really? And I bet you also support diversity.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

What is the opposite of diversity? Everyone being the same? Dominance of one culture, or race? Majority rule and dismissal of minority rights or voices?

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

Louise you are spot on. Liberty/ libertarianism and diversity are twin bed-fellows. People are diverse by defintion. Libertarians don’t impose their views on others and insist that the state doesn’t to that either. To have that position you must embrace diversity. Including the right of ‘burka wearers’ to do as they please.

Ron Todd

I would support the right of women to walk around in a shroud if that is their choice, it is when it is the choice of a husband or father that an individuals right is violated. Telling a culture not to force women to dress a particular way is imposing our western view on them. If our western views are more supportive of individual rights than immigrant culture would we be justified in promoting these views?

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

Form a libertarian pov I think yes. It’s all about individual rights of adults. Husbands do not have rights to tell their wives what to wear. But if the wife chooses to wear a burka (and I believe this is often the case though again how do u ever really know) she is free to do so. I don’t think libertarianism cares much about “culture” per se. It’s all about individual choice/ liberty.

JMckechnie

‘Spot on Mr Massie

UKIP is a party made up of 19th hole bores’.

No, that is the implied member of UKIP that facilitates your rhetoric, you mean

Christian

Anthropogenic Global warming has been proven? I must have slept through that meeting.

cg

Just ask a scientist, although maybe you won’t believe them either.

symphara

The author confuses libertarianism with anarchism. There’s nothing anti-libertarian in the desire to have a strong rule of law. Strong and fair law enforcement is necessary and welcome, as long as it protects the lives, property and freedoms of the people. This may well mean more prisons, if one believes that today’s Britain doesn’t quite protect its citizens as well as it should.

Global warming hasn’t been “proven”. Not by a long stretch. Pretty much everything the models predicted was actually proven wrong: average temperatures, equatorial hotspots, sea levels, Earth radiation, ice cap levels etc. Remember the poor fluffy polar bears floating away on a piece of melting ice, reminding us that the poles are melting? There were record levels of ice this year in Antarctica, as in highest since records began. Back to the drawing board, please!

Libertarianism has nothing to do with optimism or science-fiction. Plenty of libertarians can point to Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and how far the UK is down that road, now that the authoritarian-collectivist majority (left-wing mostly) is getting us deeper and deeper into higher state spending, higher taxes, currency debasement, and political representation exists only for the highly organised interest groups (mostly crony capitalists or public sector unions). The productive part of society is simply fed propaganda (“our NHS”, “the poor”, “front-line services”, “teachers and nurses”), used as tax milch-cows, systematically impoverished and deprived of personal and economic freedom. Every dissenting voice is quickly dismissed as “right-wing nutjobs”, “racists” or “fascists” by the vocal left-wing establishment (Labour, LibDems, most of the Conservatives, BBC, Guardian & minions) as the UK is descending into the hell-hole of socialism.

Overall I agree with the author in the fact that UKIP isn’t a libertarian party. And its policies are pie-in-the-sky stuff, nice sound bites for a party that probably isn’t going to win a single parliamentary seat in the near future thus doesn’t need to worry about actually implementing anything they pledge.

However the author is clearly not a libertarian; he’s not a liberal either (in the classical sense); he’s got some libertarian tendencies and some liberal tendencies (my guess: only in terms of personal liberties, certainly not economic liberties), but otherwise his opinions are the fairly standard fare spewed by the authoritarian-collectivist left.

the viceroy’s gin

Yes.

This.

It’s amusing watching this socialist authoritarian hold forth.

Summermir

Liberals = libertarians. You are having a joke aren’t you !! Ban this, ban that, do this, do that, think our way or else, the press must be regulated, the EU anti-democracy is great, we’re in power and now we are trying to muzzle it for our own selfish reason.

Oh Stalin was very ‘liberal’, Pol Pot too – so liberal they killed masses of people, simply for thinking differently. Ms Thacker of Rotherham, there is another great liberal for you, think this way or I’ll take those children away from you.

Multiculturalism, is the path to separatism, intolerance, bigotry, and prejudice – and the results of it can be seen any day in this wonderful socalist, authoratarian, almost fascist state called Britain.

You socialists, need are like alcaholics, you’ve got to see you have a problem, before you can admit to it. And your problem is that you think socalism = libertarian = good.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Oh god these comments.

Classical liberals have a lot in common with libertarians, they are similar philosophies with similar roots.

Socialists are not liberals.

Stalin was authoritarian communist – that’s not liberal.

If the state was enforcing multiculturalism on people that would be illiberal and not libertarian, I agree. Similarly if the state enforces monoculture on everyone, that’s not libertarian either.

You in fact seem like you have no concern for freedom at all, you just don’t like people having to be tolerant of each other’s freedoms? Well go ahead and vote UKIP but don’t fool yourself you’re some great believer in freedom. You’re not.

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

Well said. It’s the great self – delusion of UKIP. They live freedom so much they keep it just for themselves.

ScaryBiscuits

The real battle is for the LibDem vote. How do you figure that given that they are polling lower that UKIP? What’s your justification for saying that one UKIP voter equals two ‘from the middle’? #dothemaths before you call other people stupid, Alex.

in my experience, libertarians tend to be liberals. Really? Do you mean you mean a party that no longer exists? Or do you mean liberals like Nick Clegg who called the Bill of Rights a dusty old document, who happily troops through the lobbies with Labour and Conservatives to abolish the right to open justice or vast databases for the state to spy on us? Get real.
You have fundamentally misunderstood libertarianism. It is not a general state of mind, a naive optimism. It is a hard-nosed belief that non-state structures, rather than the government are the best way to optimise freedom and its closs corrollaries, happiness and progress. It is not the abolition of controls, standards or charity; it is the abolition state controls, state-imposed standards and charity with other people’s money. It is the belief that, left to itself, society will organise itself based on the self-interest to best protect the weak and the needs of society as a whole. The role of government is reduced to security, enforcing the rule of law: protecting it from criminals, people who would steal the freedom of others, both at home and abroad.

symphara

A superb comment!

Indeed, you spotted a deep flaw in the article: that libertarians are “liberals” (the author uses the word in the US sense, i.e. authoritarian-collectivists, i.e. socialists).

To be a libertarian means a rejection of state-imposed everything because ultimately the state is a collection of busy-bodies who stop at nothing to control your life and choices. All done for the “poor” (insert “hard-working” liberally), of course.

Alex Massie

Actually I do not mean “liberal” in the US sense of the term. I had hoped hat was obvious but if it is not then perhaps that is my fault.

However, I would also point out that Hayek and Friedman were each liberals. They did not hate the “poor” mind you, nor did they give the impression of considering the poor hopeless weakling or work-shy scroungers.

ScaryBiscuits

It’s probably not that obvious if you write about UK parties using US terminology.

Further confusing your terms, Hayek and Friedman are classical liberals and have almost nothing in common with modern day US liberals such as Hilary Clinton.

DGB246

He doesn’t have a clear grasp of the terms or the philosophies and that confusion is carried over in his writing unfortunately. Perhaps he needs a reading list so he can get up to speed?

the viceroy’s gin

…and probably best if the poor lad stops poncing about as a “libertarian”.

jonesc5

Best explanation of Libertarians in the US I’ve heard is. Left libertarians want as much freedom as possible with drugs. Right libertarians want as much freedom as possible with guns, Both want to get rid of social security (state pension) since not many people live to 65 when everyone is stoned and armed

I think you can define it all as owning your life in the past present and future. So my past is my stuff, my present is my freedom and my future is my life. So I don’t want the state taking those things. I like this because it only needs one assumption. “I own my life”

However you need systems in place to make sure I don’t take other peoples stuff, freedom or life. “Your right to swing your arm ends when it approaches the end of my nose”.

Warrington Carter

Libertarians in the US are not “left” or “right”. To label them such throws the very Libertarian label under the bus, as the author of this article does. Libertarians want as much freedom as possible with both guns and drugs, and every other aspect of life.

Charlie Fox

I write this as a UKIP member.

The article is a curate’s egg but ultimately Alex Massie is over-the-top in his criticism.
UKIP is an immature party. It was conceived largely by the Golf Club Right (who are over-represented at the top) but it is steadily maturing into something else that is increasingly gaining traction with the wider public.

Some points:

“We need to free ourselves from “dependence” on “foreign oil and gas”. Why? Because it is oil and gas or because it is foreign? It’s not clear. (The mainstream libertarian view is that it doesn’t much matter where we source these commodities.)”

>>So it doesn’t matter that we continue sourcing oil and gas from regions that are
extremely unstable and don’t like us much? You’ll find that most mainstream
American politicians disagree with you on that one. Why shouldn’t – why *wouldn’t*? – the UK have a similarly prudent policy of reducing reliance on such regions?

“Then there’s the dog-whistling. “Permanent” immigration should be frozen for five years (why only five?) and thereafter only open to those who are well-educated, wealthy and “fluent in English”. In other words: Australians and some South Africans are fine, Poles and Nigerians may be less welcome.”

>>Here you have a point. The inclusion of the word ‘fluent’ is utterly daft in modern
politics. Immigration should open to people who have some reasonable grasp of
English to a level that at least allows them to engage with wider society. I suspect that it is the intent behind the policy – it has just been worded by someone with no political nous or communication skills. If they are still in post, they should be fired.

“UKIP profess a belief in free trade but they’re also happy to restrict freedom of
movement. I think this economically suspect but, in some respects, that’s less
important than the substance of the dog-whistle which is, in the end, unfortunately xenophobic.”

>>There is a small germ of truth here but when set in the context of massive
immigration over the last ten years, the UKIP policy suddenly becomes
understandable. If such an open door policy had not existed, your point would be a strong one. But it did, so it isn’t. One can argue about whether the policy is structured in the right way e.g. is the freeze too long; should there be a freeze at all; is the level UKIP ultimately want too low/high? But such questions say much more about UKIP’s maturity as a political party rather than some sinister intent.

>>Yes, an agreed definition of the word is long overdue but not just within UKIP who
are closer to your minimum meaning of multiculturalism than you probably suspect. Having said that, a woolly meaning of ‘multiculturalism’ hasn’t stopped mainstream leaders across Europe to declare themselves against it. So is this really the malodorous policy you suggest?

“After all, senior UKIP figures want to pass laws telling British citizens what clothes they may – or rather, may not – wear. Live and let live? Up to a point, mate…. I
don’t think UKIP do themselves any real favours with any of this.”

>>Totally agreed without reservation. It’s sloppy policy and completely plays into your
above point about multiculturalism and suspicion of UKIP’s motives. There is simply no need for this policy. I suspect Jack Straw’s remarks a few years ago tipped the balance on this and made senior small-c conservative politicians in UKIP feel a ban would be widely acceptable (the attitude of France probably had a similar ‘reinforcing’
effect). But my feeling is there are plenty in UKIP who disagree with it.

“At its best I believe that libertarianism is relaxed, open-minded, forward-facing and
optimistic.”

>>I think you will find a lot of agreement with that statement amongst the thriving and
growing section of young UKIPpers.

“This necessarily means there’s a tension between libertarians, Tories and
Conservatives (the latter two being overlapping but still distinct groups). That can be a good thing, not least since – again at their best – each group should usefully challenge the others’ prejudices, assumptions and preferences.”

>>UKIP is exactly the same broad church with ‘tensions’ that need working/accommodating. I would suggest its large libertarian wing is growing while the old authoritarian wing has stalled (despite it holding a lot of senior posts and being sloppy with some of the policies you describe).

Libertarians are opposed to coercion by the state hence immigrants are fine however coercing the local population to accept immigration is not.

In the UK immigration has been forced upon us though coercion and lies which is why UKIP oppose it.

Simples

.

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

How was the ‘local population’ been coerced into accepting immigration? I don’t mean at the ballot box or simply having to see immigrants on the street/ workplace/ public institutions etc. I’m more interested in practical examples of how you feel you have been personally coerced (e.g. someone has taken your house and given it to an immigrant, taken you possessions, your liberty etc.)?

http://twitter.com/Goat777Face Daniel Crowley

It’s mainly in schools that people are ‘educated’ about how good immigration is and how we are ‘culturally enriched’. Then there’s The BBC programmes that go on about how we’re all so better off for having such a diverse culture.
Then there’s the laws that are used to guide the way languege works around issues. Then there’s even more laws for racial abuse that only apply when the perpetrator is white British.
How about when government funds are used to support minority community groups?

There’s loads of little things that build up. People are ticked off with that sort of thing, not the immigrants themselves (though maybe the quantity worries some people).

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

Thoughtful comments, thanks. My only response would be that if your list of items is what gets people riled up about immigration, then they must have truly lovely trouble free lives otherwise.

james higham

And since, in my experience, libertarians tend to be liberals I find
myself wondering if UKIP’s self-defined libertarianism is actually all
that libertarian.

What a remarkably silly statement. I’ve had, in the past Dale/TP awards for centre-right and more recently for libertarain. Libertarians are very much centre-right in most cases and this can be seen at the various sites online.

UKIP itself appeals to a broad range of people who want the government to butt out, lower taxes, control immigration and those sorts of things. Out of the EU but still trading with Europe, for example.

I’m currently in no party, was formerly Conservative Party and am now small c conservative libertarian. Cameron’s stupid remarks on UKIP have only pushed me further that way.

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

As a Libertarian myself, bordering towards a minarchist/anarchist, I accept that UKIP are more Libertarian than the other parties. However, I would love to see UKIP questioning the role of a state monopoly over money (legal tender laws) health-care and education. However I am also aware that it would not be popular with a large part of the electorate if UKIP started talking about making real private health-care a reality. The idea that the NHS is being privatised is nonsense. Tendering NHS services to private firms with tax-payers money is still as far removed from the Libertarians ideal of a free market as state healthcare. For example when you want to buy a laptop of Amazon, do you pay taxes to the National Laptop Buying Society who buy it on your behalf? No, you go on Amazon yourself, find a price and laptop which suits you, ie, the act of responsibility is in with the consumer which creates the competition which lowers prices.

If UKIP want to become want to become nearer a true Libertarian party they need to start tackling the areas where Government has state monopoly. Its not coincidence the areas where costs have risen the most, namely health care, education, housing are the same areas where government are most involved. Same in the US. Uncle Sam puts about 70% into health care, education, yet costs have kept going up. I do not think UKIP will address these issues for the purist Libertarian. Income taxes are also not part of the Libertarian make up.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

UKIP were never libertarian they just caught on to this thing a lot of right-wingers do nowadays which is pretend that their policies have something to do with freedom and liberty. Look at how they try to justify a state ban on gay marriage on the grounds that the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage. What logical gymnastics do you need to do to believe that this makes any sense whatsoever!?

There are libertarians in the party though, mainly in Young Independence. I wonder if there will be a generational shift towards libertarianism or if these young people will become disillusioned when they realise how authoritarian UKIP really are on many key issues.

Summermir

What logical gymnastics do you need to understand that marriage is the creation of a family, mother father and biological children. And that that family is a natual, biological, unit, that makes for a healthy society and the wellbeing of people. Thus, there is no such thing as gay marriage – if gay people want to commit to each other, what is the issue with civil partnerships. If they want to form a family, they get married to someone of the opposite sex – as many have.

However, what gay marriage does do, is denegrate the idea of mothers, and fathers (who become parent 1 and parent 2), husbands and wives (partner 1 and partner 2), and natural and adopted children. So, everyone is effected negatively. Wow, that is so libertarian isn’t it !!!

StephanieJCW

Actually marriage is a commitment ceremony. Couples who have no intention of having children aren’t barred from marriage.

How will society be harmed by the extension of that ceremony of commitment to gay people?

StephanieJCW

And gay parents are still mothers and fathers. Married gay people will still be husbands and wives. It’s not gay marriage that results in ‘partner 1 and partner 2′. It’s those of us heterosexuals who choose non-married lifestyles. I can’t ever refer to my ‘husband’ because I don’t, and won’t have one. They’ll always be my partner.

But you’re not negatively impacted and I am not negatively impacted by gay people marrying.

symphara

I think that gay couples have pretty much the same rights to create families as heterosexuals do. I’m pretty sure this is true as to the material side; perhaps not in respect to children (especially for gay men couples), but I hope you’d agree that gay men couples cannot biologically make children, and adoption is a bit more complicated, as there are other people (the children) involved, and they have rights too.

In respect to the marriage bit:

(1) Are you arguing that the state should use its force to oblige Christian churches to “marry” gay couples? If so, are you aware how illiberal, authoritarian this is?

(2) Are you arguing that the state should redefine the meaning of the word “marriage” to include gay couples? Do you understand that some people understand the word as being the union between a man and a woman, and simply object to the re-definition?

Richard Calhoun

Excellent analysis of UKIP, they are no libertarians.
Their appeal to the few is essentially IN/OUT Referendum on the EU, personally I would be delighted for such a referendum and UKIP is no doubt adding to the pressure.
But on other facets of our national life they offer precious little and certainly little of radical thought.
A very large deficit the electorate suffer in the UK is the democratic one, and yet UKIP have no policies whatsoever, they just wish to join the current Tribal Political Parties at the table and take their fill

Mike

.

Unfortunately the author of this article appears to be politically illiterate.

UKIP’s libertarianism stems from a rejection of co-ercion by the state.

Hence on immigration a libertarian does not care what colour the immigrant is but does care how the immigrant comes to be there. In the UK this has been through lies and coercion.

Simples.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

No that’s what they say but if they have candidates saying gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt, their official party policy is that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married and any religious orgs e.g .quakers who want to marry same sex partners should not be allowed to by the state, when their leader has previously advocated banning the burka, that’s anything but freedom from coercion by the state.

mike

As a libertarian I don’t care whether gay couples adopt, get married, fish in their local pond or collect stamps. What I do object to is people trying to force the church, through coercion, into marrying them.

I partly agree on the Burka however it has become a symbol of a rejection of integration into our culture. I would see UKIPs position as pragmatic rather than illiberal.

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

But this is exactly the core problem with libertarianism in the first place. Why should liberty be compromised for ‘burka wearers’? Why is that considered ‘pragmatic’ whilst banning tweed wearers’ is not? That you make these distinctions to compromise liberty in the name of pragmatism implies that a) you are not liberatian, b) libertarianism is not implementable at all.

Colonel Mustard

Oh, is there a religion that requires the wearing of tweed by men only? I want to join it.

lucillalin

Burka symbolizes the one thing full veiling has symbolized everywhere since Roman Empire = its wearer doesn’t have to work for a living. As a tax payer therefore my opinion on full veiling depends on whether the wearer is a wealthy tourist or someone living here.

Libertarianism would never work in practice, because its too optimistic about human nature. Less control by government has always meant more control within society, and usually stricter one at that. I’d be fine with that, but I doubt libertarians would like it.

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

I agree that libertarianism can never work in practice, not so much bcoz of views of human nature, more that there are too many messy interpersonal conflicts to sort out. I also think there is value to a low level of social norms / cohesion.

One point on burka wearing, libertarianism always includes the view that there is no welfare state. I think that addresses your point. It’s also why true libertarians can support having free immigration.

StephanieJCW

” As a tax payer therefore my opinion on full veiling depends on whether the wearer is a wealthy tourist or someone living here.”

Eh? Why do you care? If they are living off the state – ok. But if they are not ‘working’ because they stay at home with the family, why does this become your business because you’re a tax payer?

Madame Merle

Going about in biblical desert-wear in 21st century London, where it it totally impractical, is just one way to demonstrate contempt for our culture.

If I were silly enough to pay a visit to Saudi Arabia I would at least have the courtesy to dress as required.

Why do people settle in Britain if the hate the culture so much?

Daniel Maris

We do ban some forms of clothing. We certainly ban people from wearing Nazi uniform and there are good reasons for banning extreme Sharia clothing. It is about protecting the space for free speech and free expression. If we had people going around in Nazi uniforms in gangs, freedom would be restricted.

Banning,say, Buddhist robes would make no sense in these terms. There is not a specific and practical threat to freedom from any Buddhist movement in the UK.

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

Fair enough but we also don’t live in a libertarian state. If we did the burka wearers and nazis would have full freedom to dress as they wish as part of their free speech rights.

DGStuart

Well said. You should realise though that Massie is an advocate of unlimited immigration to the UK – he’s written on it for this journal before, so that’s the central motivation for this piece, in essence an attempt to rubbish a party that advocates strict controls on immigration is anathema to him.

So don’t expect some reasoned dissection of UKIP here. He’s got an axe to grind.

He’ll be happy enough soon though when significant parts of the Bulgarian and Romanian populations transfer to these shores once the restrictions expire, though unhappy at the current and growing popularity of UKIP in large measure due to this.

cg

UKIP is the natural home of the golf club bore. If the Tories enter any sort of deal with them then they have lost my vote.
And no, I do not support the stupid decision of Rotherham council

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

I m not a member of any party…but ironic you say that, when the UKIP leader has about ten times more charisma than Cameron, and 100 more than Milliband. I d rather have a pint in the golf club with Farage than Milliband…

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

Enjoyed this article. Although, of course its obvious they are not a true Libertarian party. You lost some credibility by saying that people who own Gold tend towards crankery? Well, I m a trader/investor, working to myself. Owning Gold has meant my cost of living has went down, people who save in Gold/Silver and other currencies,the price of petrol has went down. The converse of what you said is, I believe in the ingeniousness of our central bankers and politicians, people Ed Balls, G Brown, Cameron, Osbourne…So who are the cranks/nut jobs…the people whose cost of living has been falling or the people whose cost of living has been rising year after year?

ButcombeMan

Indeed. Anyone who started buying gold regularly when Gordon Brown started selling it, has done very very well indeed, they have increased their personal wealth when all around are struggling. Politicians have devalued fiat money, they continue to do so. Anyone in this place who cannot see that, is just not worth reading. They show the same financial & economic stupidity as the Great Leader. More so actually, the writer here has the benefit of history.

Otherwise
A ludicrous mind numbingly stupid attempt at a sensible subject. i.e. The lack of sophisticated thought in some UKIP pronouncements..

If the simple point is that UKIP has some undeveloped & less than well thought through policies, that IS true but given where they started from, is to be expected.

Holding cash or other government-raided assets (e.g. pensions) is exposed to a constant erosion.

http://twitter.com/murchadhamac Murdo MacLeod

You’re making far too much sense these days, Massie. Keep it up.

Plato

Sorry Alex but I got bored about 1/3rd of the way through for this. I’m a Libertarian but not a Kipper. I find Liberals to be anything but – they want to dish out via the State what they think is acceptable.

I prefer things the other way round where the State doesn’t try to micro manage my life or what I say or hand over control of many of our freedoms re trade and laws to the EU.

I couldn’t understand why Lib Dems were so keen on the EU – having had detailed discussions with a lot of them – I now get it. They aren’t Libertarians – my bad, I thought they were at least a bit of one.

Alex Massie

tl;dr

Plato

Excuse my ignorance – what’s tl;dr mean? My text speak has failed me.

symphara

Too long; didn’t read.

Plato

Oh I see – my 100 words were too much to digest but his 00000s weren’t.

I clearly read more of his than he did of mine.

Alex Massie

tl;dr was a joke. I should have known better than to have attempted such levity. My bad, as the kids say. Or once said.

the viceroy’s gin

Oh he read it, he just doesn’t want to acknowledge that you’re correct, and that he’s an authoritarian socialist, claiming to be “libertarian”, unbelievably enough.

Guest

That’s the aloof Massie for you – he’s also a text speaking teenage bellend it seems.

http://twitter.com/CronFlakes CronFlakes

“libertarians, Tories and Conservatives” … What about the Whigs?

Kevin

“It is not so long since I was at school myself but I do not recall – outside of divinity lessons – any great instruction on how to feel properly ashamed.”

For a blog post this is too long. For a long article, it is uninformative.

Take the above comment. What use is this anecdote? I too was instructed on how to feel ashamed in “divinity” lessons – ashamed of political incorrectness.

It is a rather typical liberal response to peremptorily scoff at social criticism as if the phenomenon described is not really happening.

What is the supposed implication? That children are taught to be proud of the Empire? To be proud of being white? To be proud of being Christian?

Fergus Pickering

Pawky is a curious word to use of somebody who has two gins before lunch. If you are going to use northern dialect words to spruce up your prose, you might use them correctly. And I suggest NOBODY use the word multicultural from now on, since it has no discernible core of meaning. And are you really happy with the large muslim enclaves in this country? But since there are none, as far as I know, in Scotland, perhaps you have no direct experience of them.

Alex Massie

Pawky is a word whose origin is, according to my dictionary now I’ve looked it up, from the 17th century and attributed to “Scots and northern English”. And if you think it curious to suppose that someone could be both pawky and a two-gin-before-lunch kind humorist then I suggest, modestly, you dinnae ken a thing aboot sly humour or, for that matter, the enlivening effects of gin.

As for immigration: I would gladly welcome much more of it to Scotland.

John Cronin

“As for immigration: I would gladly welcome much more of it to Scotland.”

I suspect this puts in a fairly small minority. What I think you mean here is:

“I would gladly welcome unlimited immigration cos I can get cheap cleaners nannies and domestics and eat out at a different effnic restaurant every night, but would then like it if the immigrants and their offspring then remained on the council estates of the East End of Glasgow and not come and swamp the schools in my nice lily white rural middle class area.”

Gusforth

On a more serious note….all the immigrants to scotland will be working…….where?

TempleNewsam

Much as I hate to admit it UKIP would probably be the best response to the decades of closet communism and marxism that has undermined this country in the guise of Labour and some Unions. The Conservatives were handed a post Iraq opportunity to annihilate Labour, proscribe them virtually, after acts of outright treason. Cameron hasn’t even sniffed that tree.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

“Decades of closet communism and marxism” – this is the kind of thing that makes UKIP and the supporters sound quite delusional.

http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

Not really. If you open your eyes and mind you will see it all around you. The delusion is in those who pretend we have a democracy and that the Tory party is right of centre.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Yes obviously I just have my eyes closed, that’s why I don’t see communism. Not because we actually live in a (social democratic) capitalist country. It’s just that all the people who don’t agree with you are stupid and have our eyes closed. Hahaha

TempleNewsam

I’m not sure what you mean. It isn’t even a matter for debate that the Labour Party, some Trade Unions and the public services are riddled with marxists. I see it even in my own Union. Plenty of Morning Star readers.

http://twitter.com/Goat777Face Daniel Crowley

Because Labour leaders for decades just haven’t been members of the Fabian Society… right?

You know that socialist think tank that was really into eugenics back in the day?

Of course UKIP’s not a libertarian party. It’s a far right authoritarian party.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“Libertarianism is a broad church but, in the end, if I’m a libertarian then UKIP can’t be very libertarian. And, of course, vice versa.”

Exactly.

Readers, I would like to introduce you to the liberal Alex Massie, who has some libertarian tendencies, but doesn’t understand the difference.

DGB246

Mr Frost

I read this article last night and concluded the same thing; Alex Massie isn’t actually a libertarian. I think he needs to do some more research before he writes an article about libertarianism again.

Kudos to you for challenging his points in a cogent and civilised way – I was simply going to write something along the lines of Massie doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but you’ve done a much better job

http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

Absolutely agree. Alex is confused because both words begin with Lib.

mike

.
.
Poor show though… Surely anyone writing an article focussing on libertarianism would have at least have wiki’ed the subject?

In my experience people who self describe themselves as liberals are best described as confused, this is a first for someone describing themselves as a libertarian though….

First time I’ve read the spectator, probably the last

.

.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

Thanks DGB246.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“Not least because they are. Britain, like other developed countries, is in many – and many significant – ways a better, freer, more tolerant, liberal, happy, relaxed place than it was back in the day. There are serious difficulties that must be overcome but the trend toward human freedom – in Britain and, in fact, across the world – has been moving in the right direction.”

Removal of trial by juries, removal of habeas corpus, European Arrest Warrants, return of the Star Chamber, detention without trial, anonymous witnesses, access to one’s home without a search warrant, transfer of the Magistrate from acting on the plaintiff’s behalf to acting on the state’s, etc.

The ‘day’ you were referring to must have been in WWII.

Alex Massie

Mr Frost: I do not disagree that many of those things you list are objectionable. I object to them too! Nevertheless and even allowing for these unfortunate developments I do not think they outweigh the great advances in liberty, opportunity and happiness that we have seen these past 60 years. Especially, though far from exclusively, for women. And that is only in this country. The rest of the world’s advances have been even more dramatic. Imperfect and uneven but sill notable.

http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

What liberty? You make a joke on Twitter and you WILL be arrested. You organise a gang of paedophile Pakistani Muslims and you will probably not be bothered by anyone. 10,000 women in the UK WILL be genitally mutilated this year. Many will be forced into marriages they don’t want. Girls are being trafficked here to become slaves. Where is the Liberty? And you want more of this sort of immigration?

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

You are confusing two different issues though. Forced marriages don’t happen because of immigration. Forcing someone into a marriage is wrong and a violation of their rights whether they do it in Pakistan or whether they move here to do it.

Paedophiles rapists etc getting away with crimes is very serious, not limited at all to Asians, it’s a problem with the way we don’t listen to people who speak up and prosecute very very few rapists. There is a culture of presuming false accusations and silencing victims. Naming victims of convicted rapists on twitter when they’re a famous footballer and slandering them. That kind of thing contributes much more to abuse and sex trafficking than “immigration” does.

Colonel MUstard

Your second paragraph is rubbish. No wonder we are moving towards a society where accusation is conflated with guilt and innocence must be proven.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

So you basically want Asian paedophiles to be different from white ones?

Until the Rotherham row they only had one policy that mattered for getting or losing support. And that was obviously getting out of the EU. Since the EU is unpopular and the other parties are unwilling or unable to renegotiate UKIP will always have a minimum level of support. Now everybody knows that they oppose multiculturalism or at least the states version of multiculturalism. Group identity neo liberalism is surly further from classical rights of the individual liberalism than anything UKIP supports. As for promising to do more with less money doesn’t every party do that?

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“UKIP, on the other hand, strikes me as being a party for reactionaries and monomaniacal euro-obsessives. Their vision of Britain is, I can’t help but feel, a Britain besieged and on the point of collapse.”

I think the message is positive i.e. that we don’t need the EU to be able to govern ourselves effectively, have a healthy economy and be a player on the world stage, so let’s get out and do it ourselves.

We are the 5th largest economy in the world, have the 4th largest military and have natural language and cultural links the world over, combined with an excellent reputation (currently number one in soft power).

The ’little Englanders’ jibe so often put to UKIP members is ironic: it is those that wish to stay in the EU that believe that the UK is too little to survive on its own.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“I don’t think UKIP do themselves any real favours with any of this. The UKIP supporters I know (small sample-size alert!) are not, really, on board with this kind of tripe. There’s a whole heap of stupidity out there – as Rotherham social services have recently demonstrated – without there being any need to add to it. Nevertheless, what’s deemed political correctness these days used to have a different name: good manners. It’s not politically incorrect to tell a Paki joke, it’s just usually stupid, boorish and rude. And while we can all agree that “PC culture” has occasionally plumbed extraordinary depths of witlessness it is – or, rather, should be – at its best a reminder to treat people as individuals not citizens defined by their ethnicity, religion, class, gender or sexual orientation. Bureaucracy struggles with this; libertarians need not.”

If you cannot see the difference between good manners and state sponsored political correctness then really, you probably are not doing yourself any favours by commenting on it. No-one got prosecuted for bad manners. And yes, bureaucracy (i.e. the state) struggles with it, so wouldn’t it be a good idea to remove it?

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“After all, senior UKIP figures want to pass laws telling British citizens what clothes they may – or rather, may not – wear. Live and let live? Up to a point, mate.”

FINALLY! Well done, this is clearly an anti-liberatarian measure and should have no place in a libertarian party.

“And yet these are the people and authorities whom UKIP argue should be given more power, not less.”

Nonsense; they’re advocating a transfer back of powers to the House, where directly elected officials can be held accountable – rather than EU institutions or UK quangos.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“But if you fail to define what you mean by multiculturalism you should not be surprised – or act offended – if some people wonder if your use of the loaded, imprecise word “multiculturalism” is actually code for something else.”

Lack of research again. Farage has been clear on countless occasions that multiculturalism has formed ghettos and divisions in our nation. He wants those foreigners (like my father) who come to live and work in the UK to adopt British society and its customs and i.e. integrate. This means that the children (like me) grow up feeling British and are able to speak the language. I’ve had a full and varied life because of it.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Well okay but the point is that’s not very libertarian. The state coercing minorities into adopting a particular lifestyle? Ha!

symphara

@twitter-189597688:disqus What you say is correct, but it’s not to the point.

The author of the article hinted quite explicitly at UKIP as being racist. I agree that wishing immigrants to integrate rather than create parallel societies isn’t very libertarian, but it’s certainly not racist.

a6 master

As we see, many fall into the common trap of believing that integration into UK society and preservation of an immigrant’s own culture are mutually exclusive. They are not. As in the case of the Rotherham foster parents, they *encouraged* the children to sing their own songs and even *wanted* to share in it and learn them, so that their culture was *not* removed from them. The point of integration is to enable them to be effective in society, to freely live and work *without* being disadvantaged. To not speak English or be able to join in with society is to live in a restricted bubble, and actually places constraints on others.

symphara

When I said “parallel societies” I meant: grouping almost exclusively with people of your own culture, creating no-go areas for anyone else, teaching your children to hate and despise the local culture, foster beliefs wholly incompatible with the local culture etc.

Of course one can integrate AND keep its own culture. It depends on the culture in question and the person in question.

Can we integrate a cannibal into Britain while also preserving his or her own culture? I doubt it. But in general I’d say it’s possible.

Clearly enough, some people want exclusively their local culture, hate everything about Britain, and Labour’s “multi-kulti” was happy enough to let them do just that. Thus we got parallel societies – some don’t even bother to properly learn English. And this is not acceptable.

http://www.coffeehousewall.co.uk/ Coffeehousewall

Why does it need to be libertarian? Who made you the boss of us all. No-one is coercing immigrants, but if they do not want to integrate then they should not come here, and if they will not integrate they should be invited to go home.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Because they are promoting themselves as a libertarian party and trying to get votes from libertarians maybe? Hence the entire point of this article explaining that in fact they’re not, they’re appealing to voters like yourself, who don’t care about individual liberties at all, you just don’t want immigrants to come unless they “integrate”. That’s their position – anti-multiculturalism. Fair enough. But pretending they care about freedom and painting anyone who thinks people should be able to live as they like and where they like as somehow statist is just ridiculous.

“Who made you boss of us all” – you are the one trying to regulate everyone’s cultures, not me!

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

I have lived in Asia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand. Your point about immigration is muddled headed. I m not a UKIP member by the way. When you have a mammoth Welfare state, unlimited immigration is going to be a problem, putting a huge burden on the rest of the tax paying base. The point is in Singapore is, when asked their about Welfare, the response is generally “We do not have too many lazy loafers here” One is free to go an live in Singapore but its not a free for all unlimited immigration… people do not flock there they way they do to the UK, because their is much less to sponge off, but if you bring something to the table, investment, skills, buying property you can qualify for a visa. Singapore is a dynamic economy, with a lot of wealth, and its like this because it attracts hard working people who become successful through their own self-effort(self-effort being a Libertarian ideal) Would it not be an injustice to the hard working tax paying base of Singapore to allow me or you to swan in, collect free health care, free education, free public services? Is it not also then unfair on the UK tax paying base to have unlimited number of people coming in to live at the expense of the population? I am all for people coming to the UK from any country, any faith, any gender,any race, caste or creed, but there must be some sort of qualification to gain entry. If Britain wants to be a highly dynamic society and economy once again, it needs to set a lofty ideal. If I was going to train at Berklee music college or Goldsmiths for music, should I expect to get in with no skill in my chosen area of music, and potentially block a more talented musician from entry. So why should a country be any different. As I said it boils down to mass immigration is not compatible with a welfare state that breeds mediocrity. Its also selfish to the existing tax base, who have worked hard over a number of years to reach where they have.

worzel1

well said and you only have to see a report in the Express yesterday where a local job centre was under seige from so many eastern europeans trying to sign on they had to call for help and more interpretors as no-one could speak english yet they were all signing on for benefits. How on earth does that benefit us in the UK

So Louise, you run it by Baron again, you want Britain to be partition into abit of Pakistan here, abit of old England there, abit of something else somewhere else ….. do you? You what, bonkers?

Baron’s an immigrant, he came because the Full Monty of Britain was preferable to the Full Monty of what he left behind. Not everything was to his liking, but the last thing on his mind was to push for changes that would require the locals, who welcomed him, to do things alien to what they had. After all, what attracted the barbarian, and most likely attracts each new arrival, is the original culture – tolerance, fairness, the rule of law…. If the new arrivals prefer sharia or whatever they should not come here, they should settle in those countries governed by sharia.

Britain is far from perfect, but in the imperfect world of ours, it’s still a place that’s closer to a perfect country than those from which most of immigrants come, why the heck should Britain ‘adopt’ many of the mores, traits, habits of the less perfect countries, or even tolerate them? The indigenous here don’t slaughter chicken on the street, not because they are not free to do so, but because it ain’t done, it ain’t a part of the culture, they don’t cover their faces in offices, banks, shops again not because the freedom to do so is nipped by law, but because it ain’t a cultural habit of theirs ……..

We’ve tolerated the MC nonsense for a number of decades, and even you cannot be blind to its failure. Instead of national unity, we are now divided more than ever before. Madness.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

What are you talking about? I haven’t said anything about what I want. Who cares what I want?

The point is that you cannot seriously call yourself a libertarian with straight face if you want to force people to live a certain. UKIP do.

http://twitter.com/Goat777Face Daniel Crowley

The point is, the government is perpetuating multiculturalism using public funds. ukip would end that. Sure people will be free to live how they want, but without schemes that divide communities, integration would naturally follow (without people losing their cultural identity).

Calumon

Depends what you consider ‘a particular lifestyle’. I don’t believe it illiberal to expect that migrants who come here are able to service their own living costs rather than relying on British taxpayers to service them, for that they’re likely going to need to speak the language.

Nobody is talking about forcing people to change religions, eat fish & chips or stop speaking their own language at home. I don’t think there’s any appetite for that kind of coercion within UKIP and neither should there be.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Really? I think some people are – they even supported banning burkas at one point.

EJ

And quite right too. Ban the bloody burka.

Madame Merle

Are you not LibertarianLou of CIF land?

http://www.bishop-hill.net Bishop Hill

I had always assumed that the point of the policy was that the state shouldn’t be encouraging immigrants to maintain different cultures. That’s perfectly compatible with libertarianism.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Does the state do that though? I thought they actually want the state to coerce people into abandoning different cultures?

State sponsored cultural festivals for a particular religious holiday, that would not be libertarian to many people.

But the state saying “abandon your religious celebrations/cultural dress/music/faith/whatever or leave” does not seem libertarian to me at all.

Summermir

In which case, it is not very libertarian to say, abandon your traditions, your views on gay marriage, your smoke in the pub, your annual vermin hunt, your membership of the BNP, you desire to blow people up, your tradition of male bishops. A real libertarian, in your terms, would be happy to allow people freedom to do all these things – just as they saw fit.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Indeed it is not – hence none of our parties are libertarian. Including UKIP.

Probably the Tories are most so… just about.

Summermir

Which leads then to two questions of debate

Is libertarianism, in the extreme, desireable? I put forward the view that social history would suggest that at the extreme of anything goes, it is not.

Then, obviously, there is a scale running between authoritarian and libertarian, along which society needs to agree to ‘rest’.

Your view is that the Tories are nearer to the libertarian end of this scale. However, how can that be, when they go along with all the things you consider are not libertarian, and indeed many of these things were implemented by socialists, so they are even less libertarian.

I doubt Ukip are Libertarian in the extreme either, however they do belive in a multicultural Europe, with each culture having the right of self-determination and soverignty over their own lands. All the other parties, do not. They want an EU where everyone has to toe the line of an autocratic body in Brussels, which is not elected.

Thus if you talk of who is the most libertarian, then Ukip are certainly more so than others – where it is desireable.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

So basically only on the one issue of Europe? That’s not even the most important area of liberty to many… but the point of liberty is exactly that politicians and governments don’t pick and choose which bits of it they want to give us. It’s not theirs to give. It’s fundamental.

Fair point about the Tories – many many non-libertarian policies especially under Cameron. I think UKIP’s policies on tax are also more libertarian for sure.

Whether libertarianism is in itself desirable is a whole other question, yes. My complaint with UKIP is more about the disingenuous nature of their campaigning. Which I suppose is hardly unique to UKIP but it’s still work challenging.

CraigStrachan

“So basically only on the one issue of Europe? That’s not even the most important area of liberty to many… but the point of liberty is exactly that politicians and governments don’t pick and choose which bits of it they want to give us. It’s not theirs to give. It’s fundamental.”

Right, but it seems to me that an important part if UKIP’s critique of the EU and the ECHR is that they act as a check on the total sovereignty of HMG over people in the U.K.

Or, to put it another way, the European dimension offers additional protection of the rights of individuals against the U.K. state, which as we know offers no constitutional guarantees of its own to its citizens. Or should that be subjects?

bwims

If Europe is not the most important area of liberty to many, they don’t understand the issues. We have no sovereignty any longer because traitors gave it away without a mandate. We allow extra-territoriality to amateur judges who make up legislation about supposed human rights in defiance of our own laws. It is the MOST important area of liberty!

Kipper

Please explain how putting a minimum price on alcohol is libertarian.

bwims

If they were, they would allow people to choose who they want in their hotels based on religious beliefs, and they wouldn’t arrest people for saying something that others _might_ find insulting.

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

A real libertarian, in your terms, would be happy to allow people freedom to do all these things – just as they saw fit.A real libertarian, in your terms, would be happy to allow people freedom to do all these things – just as they saw fit.

The definition of Libertarianism is Everyone has a right to their life, to live it as they see fit, as long as it does not bring harm on another individual, or encroach on their beliefs or freedom of expression.

So you raised the question about the BNP, yes it is their right to dislike another race, or any if they so wish, however, the Libertarian view is they can express that freely as long as they do not bring harm to that particular individual or stop them exercising their beliefs economically, ethically,spiritually, and respect for private property. Any type of thuggery/violence/encroachment on to private property would be condemned by the Libertarian.

The smoking in pubs issue is also very clear under the Libertarian ideals and comes down to private and mutually agreed private contract between individuals. For example, if a pub owner allows smoking in a pub, it is the staffs choice to work there or not…also families do not have to take their kids to eat at that particular pub. If people stop going to the pub, the owners business will struggle, and he will change the policy accordingly. The most likely way would be a separate room in the pub for smokers.

orion7

“it is the staffs choice to work there or not”
So the staff should be forced to leave their place of work and take up the dole until they can find a new job in this torpid economy if their employer deliberately adds an unnecessary and avoidable health hazard?
Jog on…

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

I did say the most likely approach by pub and restaurant owners would be a partitioned room as most bars sell food now as there are good profit margins in food. However, if a pub owner since it is his/her capital invested, sees it fit for the health of the business for it to be a smoking bar, then yes, they should have that free choice to do that. You forget that their may be people on the dole who would happily take the job in a smoking bar.

Also, many bars have had to close since the smoking ban, and the high government taxes on alcohol. Evidence shows that many Bingo halls have closed since the smoking ban. I guess it does not matter about forcing those people out of work in “this torpid economy”?

orion7

Tell you what, there is plenty of work taking down asbestos filled buildings. Your newfound employer sees it fit to not supply masks or protective gear as it is after all his/her capital invested.
We have rules to protect workers for a damn good reason

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

Terrible example. If anyone decides to apply for a job in an asbestos site, and is not provided with the right safety equipment, and training, but decides to do the job anyway without a mask/training, then that person is stupid&foolhardy.The responsibility is with them.
If I drive on a country road at 50 MPH, crash and end up with bad injuries, do I blame Volkswagen, Audi, Ford etc for not making better traction control and breaks? No,its my fault. I decided to drive at that speed knowing the risks.

I tell you what, ask the next one hundred people you meet, if they worked on an asbestos site would they continue working if one morning their employer said no mask today or suit. I suspect none of them would.

Society has moved so far away from taking personal responsibility for their own choices/actions…it seems the power to reason and judge for one self is a dying art/skill.

egwarren

I’m afraid that your own example is flawed. The employer has a legal duty to ensure and maintain a safe working environment. A failure to provide adequate equipment or training to perform a job is therefore a breach of that duty. The sense or nonsense of taking the job without adequate equipment or training is irrelevant, as the duty exists as a free standing concept.

Conversely, driving at 50mph on an icy road and crashing has nothing to do, prima facie, with the quality of the vehicle. If it did, then of course a claim would exist. However, that is an example of individual stupidity and recklessness. The former is not, as the legal duty exists independently of an individual’s mental capacity.

http://twitter.com/Goat777Face Daniel Crowley

But if an employer didn’t provide a safe working environment, then why would you work for them?

http://twitter.com/RedFxTrade Chris

This was exactly my point Daniel. It seems however, the nanny state has got into the psyche of society well and truly now as every seems to need to take the lead from some bureaucrat in a suit…..where we need a piece of paper with a law written on it to inform us that it might be dangerous to run into a burning building. Thank God for government…If not for them our cars would be blowing up, ham sandwiches would be poisoning us and our laptops exploding into bits.

bwims

What has not been addressed is that a smoking pub is not a safe working environment. The smokers are risking their health voluntarily, but the analogy with asbestos workers is flawed unless the pub provides their staff with respirators and insists that they wear them.

bwims

So we could insist that smoking pubs provide face respirators for staff working there?

http://twitter.com/Goat777Face Daniel Crowley

It’s your choice to work there or not. Don’t like it? Don’t work there. Simple.

simon

So for the sake of that people lose their property rights?

MikeF

“..the state saying “abandon your religious celebrations/cultural
dress/music/faith/whatever or leave” does not seem libertarian to me at
all.” Nor to anyone else. That would be enforced assimilation – a coerced homogenisation of all aspects of society – which as far as I can tell is not UKIP policy. What UKIP advocate is integration – in other words ensuring that everyone in the country, whatever their origins, share some essential common loyalties and capabilities – e.g. respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech and the ability to speak English. You can have all the ‘multi-culturalism’ you want on top of that providing it occurs in civil society – in other words as the result of people enjoying whatever cultural pursuits they choose whether that be food, music or speaking a different language in private life in their own time and at their own expense.

bwims

Is it libertarian to allow the oppression of women? I believe it is possible, with the appropriate brainwashing techniques, to bring up a child to believe it “wants” to do anything up to and including suicide for a cause (indeed that is why so many idiots acts as “martyrs” for terrorists).

Would it be libertarian to allow a parent to persuade a child that it really wants to be kicked to death on its 18th birthday? Obviously not. Why is it libertarian to allow a set of parents, on the basis of its religion, to persuade a little girl that when it grows up it must cover itself “for decency” so that she did not inflame the passions of men who will proceed to rape her? Why do you think these girls want to wear these stupid clothes?

By that logic, if we are not allowed to help people who are damaging themselves through ignorance, we should not help primitive societies deal with disease using medicine instead of voodoo-type “religions”

Dawn Richardson

…and does that include Alien males chasing and harassing English girls…when they don’t want it..my daughter has been hit on 4 times in her own Hampshire town is afraid to go out from fear of the unwanted attention!

Quite right. One minute the advocates of “multiculturalism”
tell us immigrants have to assimilate. Next they’re tell us immigrants should
NOT ASSIMILATE. In short the advocates of multiculturalism are are a collection of moronic, talkative, self-opinionated wind bags.

EJ

PURE PROPAGANDA: Just the title of the article tells me all I need to know. No surprise to see another craven Leftie given air-time by the Spectator.

Get it through your thick skulls: the more you (the Left-wing, metropolitan, group-think fascists) try to smear, belittle, threaten us (the majority of right-thinking people you so despise) – the more determined we will become and the more we will turn to parties like UKIP who DO listen to us.

There are too many of us who will not stand for our country being turned against our will into a third rate multicultural hell-hole.

JP

But the real question is, if we bring multiculturalism thing to an end, can I still get a chicken balti and some onion bhajis at the weekend?

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“It gets worse. Children are taught to be ashamed of our past. Really? It is not so long since I was at school myself but I do not recall – outside of divinity lessons – any great instruction on how to feel properly ashamed. Must I now presume that my friends and relatives who are teachers are actually indoctrinating their pupils in a massive programme of national self-abasement?”

Ask your teacher friends / relatives whether or not they teach (and to what extent say relative to the slave trade) the positives of colonialism – such as protecting Britain, introducing the rule of law and spreading trade.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“UKIP make this pretty clear in the final section of What We Stand For. They say: Our traditional values have been undermined. But what are those traditional values? A whites-only immigration policy? Women in the kitchen? The working-classes knowing their place? Gays denied the right to marry one another? UKIP doesn’t say.”

Yes they do. Just do some research outside of one website!

Alex Massie

Mr Frost: I admire you enthusiasm for commenting and all that but is it really so awful or lazy for me to base my views on what UKIP seems to believe on the basis of what UKIP publishes on its own website?

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

Thank you for engaging – genuinely appreciated.

Don’t know about awful, but certainly lazy.

Alex Massie

No worries. Good people can disagree on many of these things. I would not wish to proscribe UKIP or anything like that. However, I do find it perplexing that you consider quoting (accurately, but with a link to the original source so you may check for yourself) what UKIP publishes on its own website “lazy”. If that;s lazy then how lazy are they?

the viceroy’s gin

Dude, you really are lazy, with the “nyaaah nyaaaah you did it first” nonsense, even.

Look, just admit you’re an authoritarian leftist , and be done with it.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“Then there’s the dog-whistling. “Permanent” immigration should be frozen for five years (why only five?) and thereafter only open to those who are well-educated, wealthy and “fluent in English”. In other words: Australians and some South Africans are fine, Poles and Nigerians may be less welcome.”

Ah, here we are: the ‘closet racists’ arguments again. The above is a normal immigration position for most developed countries. For example, when I sought application to live in Australia, they assess what skills I could bring to the country, whether or not I had sufficient English to be able to integrate and whether I would be a financial burden. This is a normal process for those seeking citizenship.

Asylum is a different matter.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“Equally, it must be possible that the protections afforded by the Human Rights Act are not exclusively enjoyed by “criminals” and “illegal immigrants” and might also be something to be cherished by clean-living, stout-hearted Britons.”

UK subjects were perfectly well protected regarding their human rights under the provisions of our law prior to joining the EC. The Human Rights Act is necessary in other countries, but in the UK it is unnecessary.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“Global warming, of course, “is not proven” (actually it is; the question is what is the most effective and efficient way of dealing with it) and we need to free ourselves from “dependence” on “foreign oil and gas”. Why? Because it is oil and gas or because it is foreign? It’s not clear. (The mainstream libertarian view is that it doesn’t much matter where we source these commodities.)”

Again, any sort of research would have given you this answer ad infinum. Farage is on record countless times stating that having control of our energy sources gives us a greater security and a stronger negotiating position. For example, Russia could use its supply of gas to us a bargaining chip / blackmail exercise to further its own position in an otherwise unrelated area that we are both involved in. Or it could just milk us for more money.

(And I didn’t realise that you were a scientist.)
And please point me to where I can find a ‘mainstream libertarian view’? I would like to know which sources you are using as to get it so spectacualry wrong.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“And since UKIP also want – not altogether unreasonably – to “give the public power to require binding local and national referenda on major issue” it’s not certain they would even be able to build their new nuclear power stations either. What if the people say No?”

On one hand you accuse UKIP of not having libertarian policies, whilst on the other hand, when they are seeking for people – not the state – to have direct control over their lives, you shout ‘what if they say no?’ (i.e. give the ‘wrong’ result)’. Can you see the irony?

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“Since the party also proposes to eliminate employer’s national insurance and VAT (replacing it with a local sales tax) one does wonder where the money will come from to pay for the services UKIP pledges to protect.”

Yes. Because you haven’t bothered to research properly. Farage has mentioned countless time that by freeing the country from red tape and reducing taxes he believes that free enterprise will increase and the overall tax take will increase – in other words a larger GDP pie is baked from which we only need a smaller slice.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“So, sure, merging national insurance and income tax is intuitively sensible and a single 31% rate of tax at least has the advantage of being easy to understand. But actually implementing this is a different matter. Moreover and even though I rather approve of UKIP’s desire to increase the tax-free personal allowance it does not take a bear of any great brain to appreciate that the already-wealthy will be the biggest beneficiaries of UKIP’s tax policies.”

So merging tax is a good idea but rather difficult to implement, so we won’t? Jeez. It’s pretty simple and will facilitate a great downsizing of HMRC and associated state agencies.

And God no! Tax free personal allowances may well benefit the poor but we can’t let the rich to keep any of their own money! Spot the difference between ‘libertarian’ and ‘liberal’ yet?

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“And that’s before you even ponder nonsense such as the assertions that 75% of all British law is “dictated” by “Commissioners in Brussels“, that the “EU controls Immigration, Business and Employment, Financial Services, Fishing, Farming, Law and Order, Energy and Trade” and that other european countries “depend on us for their markets”.

The percentage is irrelevant, but it is true that unelected Brussels Commissioners do formulate laws that we, under the terms of the various treaties that we have signed, are required to adopt. If unelected people pushing laws on to others is not ‘dictating’, what is?

Furthermore, to dismiss the impact of our obligations to adhere to the EU law over areas such as fishing, defies credibility. One may argue for or against it, but to pretend it doesn’t exist further demonstrates further ignorance.

Finally, yes, UKIP have gone too far is saying that the EU relies on the UK for its markets, BUT we are a very important market to them. It would be madness for EU countries (more realistically the companies that operate with them) to suddenly stop trading.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“I find it hard to read the What We Stand For page on UKIP’s website and conclude that UKIP is a liberal party. And since, in my experience, libertarians tend to be liberals I find myself wondering if UKIP’s self-defined libertarianism is actually all that libertarian.”

Liberals and libertarians are entirely different. I’m surprised that you offer such a polemic on UKIP without realizing that that there is a strong difference. It demonstrates ignorance.

Ron Todd

Modern liberals are not libertarian.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

Exactly. But they think they are.

Alex Massie

Sure, not all self-styled liberals are libertarian but most libertarians are liberals. But perhaps this is a question of terms and definitions being confused. That may well be my fault in part though I kinda hoped I’d made myself clear. Not clear enough, evidently.

Ron Todd

For me a libertarian wants the maximum freedom for all individuals recognising that each individual must have some restriction on freedom to protect the freedom of others. The state’s main purpose being to provide an environment in which the individual can thrive. Liberals are whatever the political party using that name believes at the time. A liberal would want to give a criminal or those that hate us ‘human rights’ a libertarian would accept that to remove some but not all rights from dangerous people can improve the real practical rights of many people.

the viceroy’s gin

You’re confusing liberal with leftist.

You’re an authoritarian leftist, the furthest thing from liberal and libertarian there is.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

“I’m sure, as James says, the idea of some kind of Tory-UKIP non-aggression pact will not go away. But that’s because many Tory backbenchers are remarkably stupid. Proponents of a Tory-UKIP alliance ignore the stubborn fact that many voters – voters the Tories need if they are to win a majority – aren’t too keen on UKIP. There is no point adding one vote from the right if it costs you two from the middle, mainstream ground of British politics. Besides, the Tories are not every UKIP voter’s second-choice and, anyway, the real battle is for the Liberal Democrat vote”

Actually, as Lord Tebbit is at pains to point out, the failure of the Tories to win a majority is down to their failure to mobilise millions of their core vote. No Tory leader has polled more than Major managed in 1997.

DavidDP

The idea that major won because he only got the Tory core vote is nonsense of the highest order. The core vote turned out in 97- it was 33 per cent. The Tories, and any party,need more than the core vote to win. Tebbit’s analysis is seriously flawed and blinkered.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

I wrote the below (chronologically) after reading the first few paragraphs of the article. Now I wish I’d read the entire piece – what rubbish.

http://twitter.com/john_storer John Storer

Good article but have to take issue with your aside that global warming is proven. Whether global warming exists depends very much upon whose data you rely upon.

There have been rises in the ground temperature of the Earth but nothing that, over the history of the planet, should cause any alarm bells to ring. Upper atmosphere temperatures have not risen at all.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

Alex apparently understands science as well as he understands libertarianism.

a6 master

I would go further, and say that global warming (i.e. the man-made kind) has definitely NOT been proven, and Alex’s understanding of science is of the ‘argument from authority’ kind, which has no validity. It only takes one piece of observational evidence to debunk an hypothesis, and the hypothesis is that man’s CO2 emissions cause the planet to dangerously warm. Last 15+ years of no temperature rise vs. continued rising CO2 – hypothesis debunked! There’s also the ‘laugh test’, which goes like: Total CO2 is 0.039% of the atmosphere, of that ~3% is man’s (=0.00117%), and the UK’s is ~3% of global, so overall 0.0000351%. So stating that man’s global emissions at 0.00117% can drive the climate is pretty laughable. Further, the greenhouse effect (GHE) is premised on an energy budget which assumes an average solar input on a flat-earth maintaining a temp of -18degC. Any fool can see that Earth is not flat, only half the globe receives solar input at anyone time (and not all of it, but the complete globe convects & radiates heat away all the time), which makes the solar input achieve a temp of +43degC. Try telling anyone that if they stand outside in the direct sun, they will freeze to -18degC! Laughable! No GHE needed, so UKIP is entirely rational and correct to say we don’t need renewables, but a long term, efficient and reliable base load generation capacity, e.g. nuclear, rather than a short term, intermittent, inefficient and vastly over priced ‘trickle’ that is wind.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

UKIP are by far the most libertarian of the main parties. That they further to go reach the levels of libertarianism that I and I suspect many other libertarians would like them (or any bl***dy party!) to reach is a separate issue.

What we do know is that Labour introduced nearly 4,500 new criminal offences and expanded the state, with the same team is currently in Opposition wanting to take back Office. We know that the Co-alition has spewed out c.2,000 new criminal offences since taking Office and the state is no smaller.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Well frankly none of the parties are very libertarian. I think we basically have a choice between social democracy with “positive freedoms” in exchange for a lot of other freedoms, or no freedoms at all and a return to the 1950s. Neither appeal but I think the former is actually marginally preferable.

But then I am genuinely concerned with freedom and people’s lives and happiness, I don’t use “freedom” as an excuse to treat other people like crap and expect my own privilege to be respected. That’s not…anything, it’s just being not a very nice person.

Summermir

So you are quite happy for Islamic Terrorists, or Rotherham ‘baby snatching’ Social Workers, or Asian grooming gands, or Jimmy Savile (when alive) to be free to go about their merry way, and don’t see why you should treat them in anything other than a respectful way – as that would not be very libertarian. Does that go for the BNP too? Or are you only a partial libertarian?

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

No, terrorism is illegal. Paedophilia is illegal.

The BNP are legal. No one has banned political parties nor does anyone suggest that they should be banned.

Timoz

I think that should be tested by putting it to the vote at the BBC!!

Colonel Mustard

You think the 1950s were less free than now? Well, yes if you happened to be homosexual. Were you alive then or did you get your information from left wing teachers who are arrogant enough to believe that only they can confer progressive blessings? I was alive then and in my humble opinion Britain was a more free, tolerant, adult and enlightened place than it is now. Yes, pubs were full of tobacco smoke but almost everyone smoked anyway. They were FREE to do so you see.

PS The British police in the 1950s didn’t smash doors in at dawn with a para-military posse like something from Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’. Two of them turned up and knocked politely. They were part of us you see and not the armed wing of the state.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

You were not free if you were gay, lesbian, female, disabled, black, poor, Asian, transgender, Irish… but otherwise it was fine. Well that sounds just lovely.

Colonel Mustard

That is absolute nonsense and of course rather than engage in historical reality you resort to stereotypical soundbites. Black and Asian people served equally in our armed forces during the 1940s without segregation and women arguably had a more confident identity and role in British society than they do now. Again, were you actually there to experience it or have you just learned these fables from lefty academics with an axe to grind and revisionism to instil? Also, I venture to suggest you need to learn the difference between freedom and angst.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Er not soundbites, facts. Women did not have the same employment rights as men, could legally be raped by their husbands, had no access to abortion. Homosexuality was illegal. Racism was rampant. I do actually know quite a lot of people who have lived through this you know and these things are historical facts. You talk as if the only people who say this are young people which is just rubbish

ScaryBiscuits

These may be facts, Louise, but they are still selective. Women could be legally raped (if you define rape as breaking your freely given promise when you got married to have sex in return for your spouse’s fidelity) but many more women lived in happy and long marriages than do today. Homosexuality was illegal but the vast majority of gay men lived and prospered without the pressure of having to openly discuss it or be subject to the rampant intolerance of the gay lobby for anybody who isn’t sure what they are and who just want to live in peace. Persecution of Christians is probably worse today than that of homosexuals ever was. Racism was rampant but then it still is today and is probably worse as a result ‘positive’ discrimination fanning the flames.

StephanieJCW

“without segregation and women arguably had a more confident identity and role in British society than they do now”

I’m intrigued – please argue it. What is this more confident identity and role I would have had in the 50s as compared to now? And is the same true for men?

And why do women need to have an assigned ‘identity and role’?

Colonel Blood

I don’t need to argue it and I don’t engage with extremists anyway. It’s my opinion based on actually living through that era as an adult rather than being brainwashed by lefty academia. Women don’t need an “assigned identity and role” – I wrote “had” not “needed” but assigning identities and roles is precisely what modern identity group politics is about. Women are discriminated against victims and men are predators. I think I’ve got that right but you might be able to add some more villainy to the latter.

lucillalin

All I know that right now I’m ID:d when I buy a potato peeler and I sincerely doubt that was a practice in Dark Age 50′s. I also don’t count myself in some oppressed victim group with disabled, just because I happen to be a female. I’m sure women in the 50′s didn’t see themselves like that, at least none of my relatives who all are/were strong women and a lot more practical and resourceful than my generation of spoiled identity-politics obsessed brats

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Women did not have the same employment rights as men, could legally be raped by their husbands, had no access to abortion. These are facts. I don’t care if you “see yourself in a victim group” whatever you mean by that. I am stating facts and your experience does not overrule everyone else’s.

EJ

And now unfortunately we hear way too much from the above mentioned.

zakisbak

You were not free if you were gay, lesbian, female, disabled, black,
poor, Asian, transgender, Irish… but otherwise it was fine.-
I knew people from all those groups in the 60s.
Can’t say they were any less “free” then than now.
But the mass population certainly didn’t live in an Orwellian thought control nightmare as we do now.

it’s just being not a very nice person. -
Lots and lots of people in the groups you have named will be “not very nice”.
If you do not acknowledge this,you are simply displaying your own prejudices.
Actually,confirming them.You have already displayed them.

http://twitter.com/willgilpin Will Gilpin

Libertarian civic nationalists. You allow the majority of the population to live their lives as they see fit, which is the libertarian bit, within a state that offers secure environment internally and externally, that’s the nationalist bit, not discriminating its citizens on grounds of race and welcoming controlled immigration, without racial discrimination, that’s the civic bit.

Not too complicated is it?

aaa

The Author of the Article is spot on. UKIP have nothing in common with Libertarians beyond leaving the EU. Many UKIP people are nothing more than people the Monday Club thrown out of the Tory party for being too extreme.

On the Burka,Doubling the Military,Building More Prisons, On Islam (Lord Pearson extremism). Being against uncontrolled immigration is not racist, but its how you say and views on multiculturalism. UKIP uses clever coded language like republicans in america.

UKIP talk about the political elite…have they seen the people in their party ?? even the founder of UKIP says the party has been hijacked by right wing loons.

ScaryBiscuits

Ah, so we’re using coded language? Does that mean that we’re not saying what we think we’re saying but what you’re telling us we’re saying?
There is nothing inconsistent with libertarianism and a bigger military, capable of defending our freedom. Nor is there a problem with prisons big enough to house those within our boarders who abuse our freedom.

Many UKIP people are nothing more than people the Monday Club thrown out of the Tory party for being too extreme. What’s your evidence for that?

As with many lefties, you mistake insults for an argument.

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

Actually it is rather complicated. Who decides who is in the majority, where the line is drawn to define the minority? If its UKIP it’s pretty much “people like us” are the majority and get liberty. Everyone else gets draconian state control. A key tenet of libertarians is that they believe in liberty for all, not exactly the UKIP position.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

The key concept to libertarianism is a strong constitution that protects the rights of the individual and limits the power of the state. This protects the minority from the tyranny of the massess.

http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

Yeah, you need rights that limit the state’s right to lock you up without trial or torture you. Written into law, so they bind the government of the day. Some kind of human rights convention for example.

http://twitter.com/rlpkamath Rahul Kamath

The one UKIP would like us to withdraw from perchance, lolz!

Just Bob

You mean like that one drafted by Maxwell ” I’m not going down in history as the man who made sodomy legal.” Fyfe, whose intent has been perverted beyond all its original aims. He’d be spinning in his grave over bugger’s rights.

http://mrfrostblog.wordpress.com/ Mr Frost

Yes. For other countries. We already had those rights. What failed was the Executive and the Legislature to perform their duties.